Op-Ed: E3 games exploit real fears in a tumultuous world

There's a new kind of fear that seems to be creeping in to the storylines of the next round of AAA blockbuster video games. These aren't the usual, fantastical fears of zombies or alien attacks in the classic vein of countless dumb action games, but rather fears of very real social and political problems that have been distorted to seem even more terrifying. From cyber terrorism and economic instability to torture and sexual assault, the games of this year's E3 seemed more than willing to twist real-world concerns and anxieties into all-too-convenient plot points.

Not only does the game itself drive home the fear of this kind of unprecedented attack, but Activision also hired the controversial Iran-Contra figure (and now military analyst) Oliver North to participate in a faux documentary which outlines how terrifying the world secretly is. "I don't think the average American grasps how violent war is about to become," North says with well-rehearsed delivery in the faux documentary. "There's going to come a time when this technology is going to catch up with us. I have a nightmare scenario that a hacker breaks into our system that controls satellites, UAVs, even the launch of missiles." He later continues, "There is no defined battlespace. The enemy could be anywhere, and it could be anyone. I don't worry about a guy that wants to hijack a plane. I worry about the guy who wants to hijack all the planes."

Black Ops 2 was shown extensively at Microsoft's E3 press conference, which focused on the moments after the drones are hijacked. The Los Angeles skyline is blown apart and the President of the United States is attacked. The first words in the trailer whimper from a bloodied mouth, "Oh shit, oh shit, oh shit!"

Yes, it's a work of fiction, but the implication is that this kind of attack is actually something we should be worried about. This despite the fact that the developers offer no real evidence that our military systems are vulnerable, or that we'd be unprepared if such an attack did happen. The game's plot and marketing amounts to little more than context-free, Stuxnet-and-Anonymous-era nightmares masquerading as a documentary.

No Honor

Medal of Honor: Warfighter features American super-marines going into Somalia to hunt down that nation's notorious pirates. In a demonstration of this so-called realistic shooter at EA's press conference, the main character is shot over twenty times as he marches through a pirate stronghold, indiscriminately killing dozens. The game doesn't seem that concerned with the real world story of Somali fishermen turning to piracy as a last resort after their waters were overfished by opportunistic foreigners, who took advantage of the collapse of the Somali government in 1991. That doesn't fit with the cleaner, more popular narrative about filthy, inherently evil pirates who want to kill and steal from innocent sailors. In video gaming we love a good, guilt-free kill.

The oversimplification doesn't stop with military shooters. Ubisoft's Watch Dogs showcased a gunslinging hacker who can shut down parts of our world by hacking into any piece of electronics through a smartphone. The idea of our vulnerability is driven home when the protagonist causes a massive pile up at an intersection by shutting down the traffic lights, then fights a gun battle hiding among the civilians, gruesomely witnessing one woman hit in the head by a stray bullet as her husband weeps. As in Black Ops 2, the idea seems to be that we should fear an enemy's ability to co-opt our modern technology, rather than appreciate its usual reliable convenience.

And then there's the litany of games that seemed to revel in extreme levels of sadistic violence at this year's show. Square Enix's Sleeping Dogs showed off a new trailer in which the protagonist is brutally tortured, enduring a scalpel through the chest and a power drill to the knee before going on to kill his torturers, along with a small village worth of people. Far Cry 3 also featured an escape from the island of a torturous madman, while the Last of Us' incredibly brutal trailer showed the main character nearly being choked to death before turning the tables on his aggressor and putting a shotgun shell through his pleading face. This last scene was met with whoops and raucous applause from the audience at Sony's E3 press conference.

But the most obvious participant in the industry's obsession with new types of fear was Tomb Raider. The new direction for the series casts famed protagonist Lara Croft as a worn and beaten survivor who endures countless horrors and pains. This year, a new trailer shows that Lara —and, by extension, the player—will be threatened with sexual assault, taking the usual video game violence to a darker place (through the developers have tried to downplay the importance of this scene in the days since the E3 reveal.)

Boogeyman tactics

Taken together, these games send a depressing message about the coming year in big-budget, AAA games. Rather than delivering heightened drama and storytelling by exploring new types of gameplay or the subtlety of human life, these titles seem content to use boogeyman tactics to create cheap thrills through feelings of patriotism and self-preservation. In tomorrow's big budget action game the goal is mind-numbingly simple: the terrorists, hackers, pirates, torturers, rogue nations, and rapists are coming for you, and you've got to kill them first. Whatever thick coat of aesthetic veneer the developers might put on top of that experience, the core is no more intricate than Space Invaders.

Taken individually, none of these games are too objectionable, and of course creators should feel free to focus on whatever themes they want. But as a whole, I worry that they show a trend towards lessened creativity in the game industry. This year's crop of AAA games don't seem to be able to drive an exciting plot without preying on our most basic insecurities. Fear of war. Fear of foreigners. Fear of modernity. Fear for our bodies.

It's no wonder tiny iPhone games are carving out a growing share of the industry. With stories only slightly less complex, they're able to deliver hours of fun entertainment while hardcore gaming sticks with high prices, diminishing accessibility, and its latest offering: anxiety.

"In other news, the Jews still hate Arabs and Arabs still hate Jews. Sky is still (mostly) blue as too is the sea." Honor is a relative term, as too is Justice. "Their terrorists, Our freedom fighters."

DaveSimmons pretty much summed it up.There are still good games coming out though, just from lesser known developers I would say.My roommate and I were talking about this the other day, and came to the conclusion that during our life times (we are both late 20's), we have already lived through the "golden age" of gaming. I find most of the games these days, you play them for a week and after that they don't get touched. I still haven't found a game that I think I could replay as man y times as I did FF3 or Secret of Mana on the snes That being said I hardly buy/play a lot of games these days. The last one that I really got into was Dark Souls, which is a pretty great game btw if you can resist the urge to toss the controller off your balcony every now and then.

Wait...you're bitching about this NOW? Really? What's changed in the past 20 or so odd years? Big titles go in for guilt free killing. AAA is basically DEFINED as "Guilt Free Killing With Shiny Graphics". Is some half-baked plot about someone jacking our drones really any worse than teleportation technology opening up the way to hell(Doom)? This op-ed seems pretty silly to me.

For me, the problem isn't about fear in and of itself. One of the most universally praised games of all time - Deus Ex - featured a lot of the same paranoia regarding technology.

No, the real problem is how that fear is used as a plot element. Deus Ex examined that fear by asking the player what role technology had with humanity as a whole. How much of an invasion - of privacy, of our physical selves - were we willing to put up with for the benefits? Where did our humanity end?

This crop of games only stops at fear. It's used only for the visceral, and nothing more. That's the failure.

Games are just too damned expensive to make. That's why the big publishers have so much power and that's why the biggest games take the fewest risks. The indie game community is there, it's produced a few break out hits, and it's growing. But I still think it would be much easier to make a film on the cheap than to make a game. That needs to change.

One thing I would ask is that you journalists take some control of this situation. You don't have to focus your reporting on the big games that the publishers tell you to. There are many interesting, low budget, non-violent games on the way that absolutely deserve more attention. Forget CoD - it can talk about itself - shout about the good stuff.

Still, I'm glad it's become more socially acceptable to point out problems with gaming's obsession with violence. Jonasty asks what's changed. Well that's what's changed. We can talk about this now. And it feels like talking about it might actually achieve something.

Well, whaddaya know... a corporate industry has figured out it could capitalize on citizens' fears for profit in the same way that the government capitalizes on it for control (at least since Bush/Cheney et al made it popular, if not earlier). Go figure!

Well, whaddaya know... a corporate industry has figured out it could capitalize on citizens' fears for profit in the same way that the government capitalizes on it for control (at least since Bush/Cheney et al made it popular, if not earlier). Go figure!

Yes, this. It's safe to say the less educated, more affluent male-dominated Republicans/Libertarians and 'AAA' FPS shooters have a huge overlap in audience. They've been swinging elections AND console sales.

Before the dog pile: citation for less educated Republicans (yes it's a weak relationship because party affiliation in the US is a weak concept, i.e. the vastly less educated independents skew the figures per election, and it's a mostly regional trend, not a troll, lots of well educated people vote for both parties of course, ymmv):http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2008/10/r ... crats.html

And, actually, yes, drone technology is a tipping point. Soon, the moneyed classes in many nations will be able to militarily control the others with no risk to flesh and blood followers. I imagine the US-friendly and rich Saudis and Texans and such will be the first, but this technology is bound to trickle down quickly. Don't keep your head in the sand about this, we will see this in our lifetime. And it won't be terrorists seizing/keeping control. How long can democracy last without a real risk of uprising?

It's a fascinating, good idea thrown into pulp fiction, like Jurassic Park or Armageddon, and this isn't the first time it's been used, but it's the first time it can be used with a minimum of conjecture. The systems are in place, and only wait investment and iteration. And frankly I find it shocking that even war hawk Republicans can keep suggesting new weapon systems that aren't built around drones and robots. It's an archaic and dying model.

I disagree with the entire premise of this article: that these games are trying to provoke a fear reaction. That's reading a lot of stuff that isn't there into the games. There's no reason to believe that the games aren't simply what they appear to be: attempts to use the increasing interconnectedness of our world to present scenarios that are now becoming plausible (no matter how likely or unlikely). You can be cynical and assume it's to provoke fear and make some negative statement about technology, but what evidence do you have? Not a shred.

More importantly, I don't want to live life in such a cynical frame of mind that I assume the most negative interpretation of everything that happens. They're games. Let's have some fun, rather than scowling about how awful this bit of narrative or that bit is.

"This despite the fact that the developers offer no real evidence that our military systems are vulnerable, or that we'd be unprepared if such an attack did happen."

Apparently the author has totally forgotten that little incident where Iran seized remote control of one of our unmanned drones and is still in possession of it. Duh? Hubris is one of the pillars of American thought.

How dare developers use darker plots that reflect reality rather than fairy tales appropriate for children. I am outraged at their attempt to do something different, why can't they just do the exact same thing year after year like gamers obviously want them to?

Gotta say, this summer is going to be fun with PTSD and crippling anxiety attacks... At least there are still niche games out there for people like that, Civ V, Sins, etc etc.. If I'm in a good mood I could even play STALKER.

How dare developers use darker plots that reflect reality rather than fairy tales appropriate for children. I am outraged at their attempt to do something different, why can't they just do the exact same thing year after year like gamers obviously want them to?

This.

While I do admittedly prefer the less dark-and-brooding-teenager kind of plot (and I prefer to see the world in more than 2 colors: Grey and Brown), you really hit the nail on the head.

The content aged with its core demographic? Surprising? Not if you have more than 2 brain cells.

I think what this article was TRYING to address is: Where are the NON-BROODING titles? And that is a good question. Tomb Raider looks good, but outside of Nintendo's Booth, where were the games with a vibrant color pallet?

Give me Pikmin 2 over Generic Shooter #4562 any way. Let's face it, 3 days after it releases everyone's going to finish it and complaining about it on Metacritic anyway. Like flies on a window.

Wait...you're bitching about this NOW? Really? What's changed in the past 20 or so odd years? Big titles go in for guilt free killing. AAA is basically DEFINED as "Guilt Free Killing With Shiny Graphics". Is some half-baked plot about someone jacking our drones really any worse than teleportation technology opening up the way to hell(Doom)? This op-ed seems pretty silly to me.

Agreed.

All the article made me do was think about Robocop, Terminator, War Games, Grand Theft Auto, Postal, etc.

Hacked drones would only worry me if they carried napalm and/or nukes - and didn't need to be refueled after a few hours.

At least Steven King's "Maximum Overdrive" explained how the possessed vehicles were refueled, even though the idea of them being possessed in the first place was crap.

THREATENED WITH SEXUAL ASSAULT! /snerk I think I had enough of that thread already.

However, the COD games (storywise) are sickening though. They drive to reinforce the idea that Americans need to be concerned that the ticking-bomb is real and that Jack Baur exists. Also, find it revolting to die and they have Donald Rumsfield quotes spat at me. IW is full of asssholes, IMO.

Wait...you're bitching about this NOW? Really? What's changed in the past 20 or so odd years? Big titles go in for guilt free killing. AAA is basically DEFINED as "Guilt Free Killing With Shiny Graphics". Is some half-baked plot about someone jacking our drones really any worse than teleportation technology opening up the way to hell(Doom)? This op-ed seems pretty silly to me.

One is over the top stupid and the other claims to be plausible. It's the difference between a B-grade movie that regards itself with irony and a movie that purports to be AAA-grade that takes itself seriously. Nobody applies serious criticism to a B-grade movie. You just laugh along with the joke. AAA-grade movies beg to be taken seriously and deserve serious criticism. And serious criticism is what they just got and were found wanting.

It's been pushed on the people of the West since the dawn of the moving picture, and before that since the dawn of the printing press, and before that since the rows of monks copying the bible, and before that the shaman in the tribal village, and before that since the first man looked at the moon and realised he could easily control others without resorting to physical violence simply by saying a few choice words creating a sphere of fear and misinformation.

And sadly the worst thing about it is, almost all humans succumb to it.

Those of us who don't. Well, we don't conform, and as those who espouse such propoganda, realise that is the greatest fear and it's what ensures it's very success. You think I'm wrong, then perhaps you're a terrorist, or a peadophile, think of the children, were doing it for your safety... You kind of get the idea, yes?

How dare developers use darker plots that reflect reality rather than fairy tales appropriate for children. I am outraged at their attempt to do something different, why can't they just do the exact same thing year after year like gamers obviously want them to?

Reflect reality?

Reality, my learned friend, is a lot more darker than these games ever will be, or even than you care to give consideration.

When children are starving, drinking polluted water, and whilst bankers are bailed out with money from yourselves so they can keep their mansions and yachts and hookers.

That my learned friend, is the reality. If you want to be a pixel hero, you go right ahead. I'll wave my keyboard back at you. Now, that really is scary.

My god, Ars Technica is more and more conservative or all about culpability

-I don't understand : there are a lot of games on the market for every taste, feels and humor : I just bought a game with cue tiny insects. I would also buy that game if it is really that gritty, cinematic and still interactive.

You need to stop focus on AAA violent game if it's not your fancy. And you will see, editors will do others game too.

-.

Well : stop your moralistic crap. You are not in position to be that deep, Ars Technica.

-Ho,and please you old folks with your "golden age" or "MY old games was better now it's only violence "

Congratulations : you are OLD !

Yes, when you were a kid, you were invincible, fast, full of health, it was GREAT. And so your games, shows, cartoons and stuff were the BEST. Of course.

Please, I was there : I play E.T on Atari 2600 (it was crap), I played space invaders and Mario and Zelda on nes. I played secret of man on snes, OF COURSE (it was a beautiful game) and Xenogears on ps1. I played monkey island, king quest, lemmings, shadow of the beast, dune, seventh guest, day of tentacle, sonic 1 until 4, I played Kult and Ultima , populous and little big planet (and also a cute game named little big adventure).

I also played ICO, you should play ICO

So, don't dare to do your silly "old games was better" or "it's only violence". No it's not, you know better !

There are tremendous choice, there are now very beautiful games and also very artistic ones. You just choose to ignore them

You just choose to create artificial barrier between "AAA games for console" and independ titles, experimental or cute games for console and pc.

YOU choose to present fear driven game, "realistic" violence game and after to force us to feel guilty ! Stop the moralistic crap !

When Ars is tired of that silly game, Ars knows to speak to us about others games.

There are many.

Now, stop the bias or your politics, and write about TECHNOLOGY and ALL stuff happening.

It's been pushed on the people of the West since the dawn of the moving picture,

I guess I better move to the East, that haven of truth and sanity?

I don't know about you two but I can do you one better. Wasn't there an article about bringing an Asteroid close to Earth? That's prime real-estate right there. And the view? Well...it's out of this world!!!

Replace "game" or "games" in the article with novel, TV show, or movie, fix a few titles for consistency, and you can write nearly exactly the same article. Do you show the same concern when Hollywood does this with movie plots?

Wwen wrote:

THREATENED WITH SEXUAL ASSAULT! /snerk I think I had enough of that thread already.

I know, right? How, exactly, do people expect a very bad man to act towards the pretty young woman he has captured and whose friends he has been killing? Invite her to tea and biscuits? Mind you, I am not making light of sexual assault. It is a serious crime and a serious, unfortunately common problem for women everywhere (as well as children, and probably to a much lesser extent men; however, in the game a woman is in the situation). That the game does not paint over that or make light of it, but instead puts Lara in a realistic scenario with the very bad man acting in a very character fitting way, does not seem to me like they are exploiting fear. At least no more than the dozens if not hundreds of movies and TV shows, not to mention countless novels, that have had very similar if not the almost exact same scenario in them. Has there traditionally been as much controversy in those media about this?

Of course, I am not a woman, nor have I ever been sexually assaulted, so I'm probably completely wrong about everything here, but I just don't get the controversy over this. It's like, it's ok to do this in movies, tv shows, and books, but in a video game? Grab the pitchforks and torches, folks!

It comes in slightly increasing shades of grey, but it's clear how we've gone from Space Invaders (meaningless pixels that were easily regarded as such) to a game that glorifies someone punching a hole through a woman's head and watching her husband weeping over her. No individual with any social integrity could watch that and feel anything but revulsion--yes, you see what I did there, and I don't care.

This isn't the first year that games have glorified acts of cruel inhumanity, but as time progresses we see how raw and gritty things have become. Depicting a man pleading for his life followed by a graphic video of his head blown apart by shotgun shells is fun and cheer-worthy to the most sick instincts.

Most games fail to depict consequences for protagonists, but as these situations become increasingly realistic and life-like there ought to be some connection with them. When one person shoots another it's a very traumatic experience, as is getting shot at. Hardened killers are the stuff of Hollywood. One might say Hollywood does the same thing as these games, but it's a whole different ball game when your finger is the catalyst for the events, when you are "living" the scene.

I guess it shouldn't surprise me that people dismiss these games as just more of the same, but they are decidedly not. I agree with the author's conclusion that most people get no pleasure from the experiences provided by these so-called AAA games. They're not in it for the pseudo-thrill of horror, they just want something to be fun. And since my opinion has as much weight as those who disagree (i.e. none whatsoever) I reject any retorts that some people find this fun. Grow up.

The reason we can talk about this now is because video games are not under the same threat of heavy handed regulation that they once were. We can now have a serious discussion about the content of video games without having to take a purely political stance that there is nothing actually wrong with the content.

Some people still feel a need to say that anything goes and how dare anybody actually analyse the content of a video game seriously, but that time is passed. We can criticize a game's banal and violent and shallow content without fear that it will be picked up by some crusader and used a reason to overly regulate them.

Also, I'm insulted that somebody would compare Robocop or War Games to the trash being produced by most AAA titles. Both Robocop and War Games may be about the anxieties of their times but they are also both really well made movies. Robocop contains brilliant satire that goes along well with its over the top violence and War Games is still one of the more realistic hacking movies ever made despite some glaring flaws.

Replace "game" or "games" in the article with novel, TV show, or movie, fix a few titles for consistency, and you can write nearly exactly the same article. Do you show the same concern when Hollywood does this with movie plots?

There's a much tighter emotional connection when you control the character. These games aren't written for the same voyeuristic experience that movies provide. They're designed to draw you in, make you a part of the character as you guide, fight and make decisions on the character's behalf. It's a considerably different ball-game than other media.

Am I the minority in not caring a lick about some poorly contrived back story, skipping every cut scene, and generally believing that the notions of 'immersion' and 'storytelling' in video games have been inflated to the point of absurdity? If the game is decent, you don't need any extra motivation to play it. If it's crap, extra layers of artistic junk and terrible dialogue aren't going to make it smell any better.

Game developers have gone down a bad path in dedicating significant resources to superfluous aspects of the game. No wonder the development budgets are huge when you also factor in the ridiculous sums spent on marketing.

Hell, rather than bothering with a video game at all, let's just sit around the old console and read a book of spells from J.K. Rowling!!! Does that sound good Sony?!? What a load of BS.

[...] we have already lived through the "golden age" of gaming. I find most of the games these days, you play them for a week and after that they don't get touched. I still haven't found a game that I think I could replay as man y times as I did FF3 or Secret of Mana on the snes

+1, careful with the rose-tinted glasses though, I think we're in a golden age of gaming right now - more options than you can shake a stick at!

Btw, tried Chrono Trigger or Baldur's Gate? Very replayable games

The core of the article seems to be pointing out that an overwhelming majority of "big" (AAA, whatever) games at E3 are simply turning up the violence and fear. Each to his own, whatever blows your hair back imo. I think it's valid commentary and we'll see if devs push it too far and lose their audience. I'm just glad we have such a diverse industry with a lot of variety these days. Vote with your wallet.

If you prefer a certain type of entertainment over another you should change your personal buying habits to encourage that but you should never force other people through threat of violence (the law) to comply with what you think is good and proper. Thats how stupid laws are made, like chemically castrating those objectionable gays (that ended up killing poor Alan Turning in that other ARS article published today).

[quote=Surgeon]If you prefer a certain type of entertainment over another you should change your personal buying habits to encourage that but you should never force other people through threat of violence (the law) to comply with what you think is good and proper. Thats how stupid laws are made, like chemically castrating those objectionable gays (that ended up killing poor Alan Turning in that other ARS article published today)[/quote].

Nice job putting words into 99.9% of the people who object to the violence. (Legislation-hungry hordes excepted, and are a very vocal tiny minority.) We will vote with our dollars, thank you, because we're reasonable and rational people. But we'll also voice our opinion because, hell, that's what people do.

Edit: I should clarify what I said: violence is one thing, but mindless, consequence-free, glorification of this kind of violence is uncalled for and irresponsible.

[...] we have already lived through the "golden age" of gaming. I find most of the games these days, you play them for a week and after that they don't get touched. I still haven't found a game that I think I could replay as man y times as I did FF3 or Secret of Mana on the snes

+1, careful with the rose-tinted glasses though, I think we're in a golden age of gaming right now - more options than you can shake a stick at!

Btw, tried Chrono Trigger or Baldur's Gate? Very replayable games

The core of the article seems to be pointing out that an overwhelming majority of "big" (AAA, whatever) games at E3 are simply turning up the violence and fear. Each to his own, whatever blows your hair back imo. I think it's valid commentary and we'll see if devs push it too far and lose their audience. I'm just glad we have such a diverse industry with a lot of variety these days. Vote with your wallet.

Indeed! two of my other favourite games I know there are lots of good games out now too so I guess it's not fair for me to say the "golden age" has come and gone. I think the difference is that AAA titles today (mostly) don't have to be anything special, they juts have to be marketed as AAA titles to be AAA titles, if that makes sense. When gaming was more of a niche industry I think developers really had to make something special for it to be noticed! I don't get a lot of time to play games these days, so I really have to find a game that offers something worthwhile to be willing to put time into it. I'm not even genre biased, all I'm asking is that the game offer something new and somewhat creative. ...That being said I already have huge woody over the new Mechwarrior that's coming out